Features » August 13, 2008

Why Soldiers Rape

An alarming number of women soldiers are being sexually abused by their comrades-in-arms, both at war and at home. This fact has received a fair amount of attention lately from researchers and the press – and deservedly so.

But the attention always focuses on the women: where they were when assaulted, their relations with the assailant, the effects on their mental health and careers, whether they are being adequately helped, and so on. That discussion, as valuable as it is, misses a fundamental point. To understand military sexual assault, let alone know how to stop it, we must focus on the perpetrators. We need to ask: Why do soldiers rape?

Rape in civilian life is already unacceptably common. One in six women is raped or sexually assaulted in her lifetime, according to the National Institute of Justice, a number so high it should be considered an epidemic.

In the military, however, the situation is even worse. Rape is almost twice as frequent as it is among civilians, especially in wartime. Soldiers are taught to regard one another as family, so military rape resembles incest. And most of the soldiers who rape are older and of higher rank than their victims, so are taking advantage of their authority to attack the very people they are supposed to protect.

Department of Defense reports show that nearly 90 percent of rape victims in the Army are junior-ranking women, whose average age is 21, while most of the assailants are non-commissioned officers or junior men, whose average age is 28.

This sexual violence persists in spite of strict laws against rape in the military and a concerted Pentagon effort in 2005 to reform procedures for reporting the crime. Unfortunately, neither the press nor the many teams of psychologists and sociologists who study veterans ever seem to ask why.

The answer appears to lie in a confluence of military culture, the psychology of the assailants and the nature of war.

Two seminal studies have examined military culture and its attitudes toward women: one by Duke University Law Professor Madeline Morris in 1996, which was presented in the paper “By Force of Arms: Rape, War, and Military Culture” and published in Duke Law Journal; and the other by University of California professor and folklorist Carol Burke in 2004 and explained in her book, Camp All-American, Hanoi Jane and the High-And-Tight: Gender, Folklore and Changing Military Culture (Beacon Press). Both authors found that military culture is more misogynistic than even many critics of the military would suspect. Sometimes this misogyny stems from competition and sometimes from resentment, but it lies at the root of why soldiers rape.

One recent Iraq War veteran reflected this misogyny when he described his Marine Corp training for a collection of soldiers’ works called Warrior Writers, published by Iraq Veterans Against the War in 2008:

The [Drill Instructor’s] nightly homiletic speeches, full of an unabashed hatred of women, were part of the second phase of boot camp: the process of rebuilding recruits into Marines.

Morris and Burke both show that military language reveals this “unabashed hatred of women” all the time. Even with a force that is now 14 percent female, and with rules that prohibit drill instructors from using racial epithets and curses, those same instructors still routinely denigrate recruits by calling them “pussy,” “girl,” “bitch,” “lady” and “dyke.” The everyday speech of soldiers is still riddled with sexist insults.

Soldiers still openly peruse pornography that humiliates women. (Pornography is officially banned in the military, but is easily available to soldiers through the mail and from civilian sources, and there is a significant correlation between pornography circulation and rape rates, according to Duke’s Morris.) And military men still sing the misogynist rhymes that have been around for decades. For example, Burke’s book cites this Naval Academy chant:

Who can take a chainsaw
Cut the bitch in two
Fuck the bottom half
And give the upper half to you…

The message in all these insults is that women have no business trying to be soldiers. In 2007, Sgt. Sarah Scully of the Army’s 8th Military Police Brigade wrote to me in an e-mail from Kuwait, where she was serving: “In the Army, any sign that you are a woman means you are automatically ridiculed and treated as inferior.”

Army Spc. Mickiela Montoya, who was in Iraq for 11 months from 2005-2006, put it another way: “There are only three things the guys let you be if you’re a girl in the military: a bitch, a ho or a dyke. One guy told me he thinks the military sends women over to give the guys eye candy to keep them sane. He told me in Vietnam they had prostitutes, but they don’t have those in Iraq, so they have women soldiers instead.”

The view of women as sexual prey has always been present in military culture. Indeed, civilian women have been seen as sexual booty for conquering soldiers since the beginning of human history. So, it should come as no surprise that the sexual persecution of female soldiers has been going on in the armed forces for decades.

• A 2004 study of veterans from Vietnam and all wars since, conducted by psychotherapist Maureen Murdoch and published in the journal Military Medicine, found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving.

• In 2003, a survey of female veterans from Vietnam through the first Gulf War by psychologist Anne Sadler and her colleagues, published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military.

• And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, also conducted by Murdoch and published in Archives of Family Medicine, reported that 90 percent had been sexually harassed, which means anything from being pressured for sex to being relentlessly teased and stared at.

• A 2007 survey by the Department of Veterans Affairs found that homelessness among female veterans is rapidly increasing as women soldiers come back from Iraq and Afghanistan. Forty percent of these homeless female veterans say they were sexually abused while in the service.

Defense Department numbers are much lower. In Fiscal Year 2007, the Pentagon reported 2,085 sexual assaults among military women, which given that there are about 200,000 active-duty women in the armed forces, is a mere fraction of what the veterans studies indicate. The discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the Pentagon counts only those rapes that soldiers have officially reported.

Having the courage to report a rape is hard enough for civilians, where unsympathetic police, victim-blaming myths, and the fear of reprisal prevent some 60 percent of rapes from being brought to light, according to a 2005 Department of Justice study.

But within the military, reporting is much riskier. Platoons are enclosed, hierarchical societies, riddled with gossip, so any woman who reports a sexual assault has little chance of remaining anonymous. She will probably have to face her assailant day after day and put up with resentment and blame from other soldiers who see her as a snitch. She risks being persecuted by her assailant if he is her superior, and punished by any commanders who consider her a troublemaker. And because military culture demands that all soldiers keep their pain and distress to themselves, reporting an assault will make her look weak and cowardly.

For all these reasons, some 80 percent of military rapes are never reported, as the Pentagon itself acknowledges.

This widespread misogyny in the military actively encourages a rape culture. It sends the message to men that, no matter how they feel about women, they won’t fit in as soldiers unless they prove themselves a “brother” by demeaning and persecuting women at every opportunity. So even though most soldiers are not rapists, and most men do not hate women, in the military even the nicest guys succumb to the pressure to act as if they do.

Of the 40 or so female veterans I have interviewed over the past two years, all but two said they were constantly sexually harassed by their comrades while they were serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, and many told me that the men were worse in groups than they were individually. Air Force Sgt. Marti Ribeiro, for example, told me that she was relentlessly harassed for all eight years of her service, both in training and during her deployments in 2003 and 2006:

I ended up waging my own war against an enemy dressed in the same uniform as mine. I had a senior non-commissioned officer harass me on a regular basis. He would constantly quiz me about my sex life, show up at the barracks at odd hours of the night and ask personal questions that no supervisor has a right to ask. I had a colonel sexually harass me in ways I’m too embarrassed to explain. Once my sergeant sat with me at lunch in the chow hall, and he said, ‘I feel like I’m in a fish bowl, the way all the men’s eyes are boring into your back.’ I told him, ‘That’s what my life is like.’

Misogyny has always been at the root of sexual violence in the military, but two other factors contribute to it, as well: the type of man who chooses to enter the all-volunteer force and the nature of the Iraq War.

The economic reasons behind enlistment are well understood. The military is the primary path out of poverty and dead-end jobs for many of the poor in America. What is less discussed is that many soldiers enlist as teenagers to escape troubled or violent homes.

Two studies of Army and Marine recruits, one conducted in 1996 by psychologists L.N. Rosen and L. Martin, and the other in 2005 by Jessica Wolfe and her colleagues of the Boston Veterans Affairs Health Center, both of which were published in the journal Military Medicine, found that half the male enlistees had been physically abused in childhood, one-sixth had been sexually abused, and 11 percent had experienced both. This is significant because, as psychologists have long known, childhood abuse often turns men into abusers.

In the ’70s, when the women’s movement brought general awareness of rape to a peak, three men – criminologist Menachim Amir and psychologists Nicholas Groth and Gene Abel – conducted separate but groundbreaking studies of imprisoned rapists. They found that rapists are not motivated by out-of-control lust, as is widely thought, but by a mix of anger, sexual sadism and the need to dominate – urges that are usually formed in childhood. Therefore, the best way to understand a rapist is to think of him as a torturer who uses sex as a weapon to degrade and destroy his victims. This is just as true of a soldier rapist as it is of a civilian who rapes.

Nobody has yet proven that abusive men like this seek out the military – attracted by its violent culture – but several scholars suspect that this is so, including the aforementioned Morris and Rutgers University law professor Elizabeth L. Hillman, author of a forthcoming paper on sexual violence in the military. Hillman writes, “There is … the possibility that the demographics of the all-volunteer force draw more rape-prone men into uniform as compared to civil society.”

Worse, according to the Defense Department’s own reports, the military has been exacerbating the problem by granting an increasing number of “moral waivers” to its recruits since 9/11, which means enlisting men with records of domestic and sexual violence.

Furthermore, the military has an abysmal record when it comes to catching, prosecuting and punishing its rapists. The Pentagon’s 2007 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military found that 47 percent of the reported sexual assaults in 2007 were dismissed as unworthy of investigation, and only about 8 percent of the cases went to court-martial, reflecting the difficulty female soldiers have in making themselves heard or believed when they report sexual assault within the military. The majority of assailants were given what the Pentagon calls “nonjudicial punishments, administrative actions and discharges.” By contrast, in civilian life, 40 percent of those accused of sex crimes are prosecuted.

Which brings us to the question: Do the reasons soldiers rape have anything to do with the nature of the wars we are waging today, particularly in Iraq?

Robert Jay Lifton, a professor of psychiatry who studies war crimes, theorizes that soldiers are particularly prone to commit atrocities in a war of brutal occupation, where the enemy is civilian resistance, the command sanctions torture, and the war is justified by distorted reasoning and obvious lies.

Thus, many American troops in Iraq have deliberately shot children, raped civilian women and teenagers, tortured prisoners of war, and abused their own comrades because they see no moral justification for the war, and are reduced to nothing but self-loathing, anger, fear and hatred.

Although these explanations for why soldiers rape are dispiriting, they do at least suggest that the military could institute the following reforms:

• Promote and honor more women soldiers. The more respect women are shown by the command, the less abuse they will get from their comrades.

• Teach officers and enlistees that rape is torture and a war crime.

• Expel men from the military who attack their female comrades.

• Ban the consumption of pornography.

• Prohibit the use of sexist language by drill instructors.

• Educate officers to insist that women be treated with respect.

• Train military counselors to help male and female soldiers not only with war trauma, but also with childhood abuse and sexual assault.

Helen Benedict, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, is author of several books concerning social justice and women. Her writings on women soldiers won the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism in 2008.

I stopped reading at the "1 in 6" statistic. Any author that starts their article with such a blatant and overused feminist myth, is not worthy of my further attention. Google "1 in 6 rape debunked" = 1,810,000 results.

Posted by Conc3rn3d C4n4di4n on 2013-07-25 09:15:33

I take issue with a couple things the author has to say. First, the claim that the military record in handling sexual incidents is "abysmal" because "only" 8 percent of cases are referred to court martials betrays either an abysmal understanding of "non-judicial punishment" or a deliberate attemot at misleading.

Company or Field Grade commanders can "offer" non-judicial punishment under the UCMJ's Article 15, so naturally that punishment is called an Art 15 in the ranks. Art 15 can be used for the more minor infractions of military life, disrespect, disorderly conduct, minor theft, and minor sexual misconduct like a groping or harassment, catcalls, etc.. But don't think that an art 15 punishment is trivial, as it is a career killer for enlisted and officers as well. The author says 47% of reported incidents are dismissed, and 8% go to court martial, which could mean 45% are handled by Art 15s. Without statistical data on the breakdown of the incidents, we are unable to determine the percentage of forcible rapes included in the total. But it appears logical that minor infractions are handled by Art 15, while more serious ones go to court martials. Some serious incidents may also end up in Art 15s when the evidence is lacking for a conviction in a court martial, and a lesser crime is plea bargained. Bottom line, civilian systems prosecute 40%, while the military system of Art 15 and court martials prosecutes somewhere between 45% and 52% (according to the article).

Posted by Steve on 2013-06-07 17:23:37

This problem needs to be fixed. Lt General Franklin proved that if you know the right people you can get away with anything.

Posted by Guest on 2013-06-04 15:57:33

Because they can?

Posted by pbr90 on 2013-06-04 10:25:55

Rape is up because the men can no longer blackmail women into have sex with them. The men use the "If you don't have sex with me, I'll tell people that you are a lesbian and you will be kick out of the military". This is rape that was not report be women. With open lesbian now the men can no longer blackmail women. So rape is up because blackmail is off the book for them.

Posted by Shari on 2013-05-08 18:00:02

Not only women but men get raped in the army too.

Posted by andywatt on 2012-12-18 06:14:25

Thank you. You’re thefirst journalist that I felt was looking for solutions instead sensations. I’m a trained victim advocate for the US Armyand most of your concerns are now actively being addressed. Are you familiar with the Army SHARP program? It educates soldiers and commanders to focusefforts on the offenders and has removed sexual harassment as a form ofdiscrimination and has redefined as a precursor to sexual assault. Will this have a positive effect? For the most part, most of your research isconsistent with what we are being exposed to, but I do have a problem with two assumptions. First, even with an increase of moralwaivers, the Lautenberg Amendment prevents domestic violence offenders fromenlistment, and the Army’s restrictions on sexual assault offenders isextremely limiting. It doesn’t evenrequire a conviction; just an arrest has the potential to bar one fromenlistment. Second, you sight Hillman as writing “There is … the possibilitythat the demographics of the all-volunteer force draw more rape-prone men intouniform as compared to civil society.” This is simply not true. Theincreased occurrence of rape in the military is drastically affected by the maleto female ratio. Most can agree 1 in 3women who serve in the US military will be sexually assaulted. It is difficult to draw a comparison by asample of a population that is so limited in age and experience these crimes insuch a short period of time. It is justplain dangerous for a women to consider a single tour of duty with those oddsstaring them in the face. There is asample from our population that is very similar in many ways, college studentsare roughly similar in age to soldiers and attend college for about the same periodof time. Furthermore, campuses have asimilarly dismal reporting and prosecution rate as the US military. It is safer on campus for a woman. Stats suggest 1 in 5 women who attend collegewill be sexually assaulted while they are there for the average of five years,but, the men who populate these campuses are more prone to rape than theaverage soldier. The male to femaleratio of college students is 8 to 10. Inan average group of 10, 2 female college students can expect to be sexually assaulted,or 2 of the 8 male students, 1 in 4, 25%, are prone to rape. In contrast, the military male to femaleratio is 9 to 1. In order to gather alarge enough sample of military males to ensure it contains a “rape-prone” manwould require a population of 27 male soldiers. 27 males to 3 female. Over thecourse of an average enlistment 1 of the females will be raped, 2 willnot. 1 of the 27 male soldiers is a rapist.1 in 27 or 4% College male 25% rape-prone vs. male soldier 4% rape-prone. I do understand the difficult task ofcollecting and using statistical data when it comes to sexual assault andrape. My numbers, by nature, cannot beperfect, but they do a whole lot more than just suggest “possibilities” about “demographics”. The Army, as the rest of our society, doeslittle to prevent the criminals from committing rape and, like many otherinstitutions, benefits from denial and concealment and acts accordingly. The Army is attempting to address these twohorrible facts, and Hillman is dead wrong. The US Soldier is less prone to rape than our average civilian.

Posted by NotAVictom on 2012-09-27 01:44:59

wspettus,
I don't think that the situation in construction site or such places can be compared with military life. think about it, women do not work in construction site (from example u mentioned), at least not for a long time. It is not same as having to see men 24/7. At least you have break, weekend off, time after work to meet others. This is why the author of the article specifically talks about rape in military because it IS different. Men who work at construction gets to see his family everyday if he's married, or girlfriend. Plus, pornography is not shared so openly because they don't live together, and also the maleness that a soldier feels needs to be expressed is not same as that of workers living in civilian life style. So I defy your claim that situation & environment in military life & civilian life is the same. I think there are too many differences to compare. & plus, the level of demeaning language of women is much higher in military. If you were a man, you listen to it 24/7. If you were a woman, you listen to it 24/7. Working in civilian environment is much different, so is the pressure a man feels that he must demonstrate his maleness with demeaning language or with violence.
Plus, I don't think you can call her writing "over politicizing the crime of rape in the military". How is it over politicizing? As the studies show, only few percentage of original number of rape report ever get to the court. This is, in fact, stunning and astonishing. So why encourage the report ? & she has pointed out that anonymity means almost nothing, so how can the reporter be protected? I think her advice gives more plausible & effective measure to decrease the rape/sexual harassment rate in the military.Posted by levent on 2008-11-16 19:40:27

Hi Armyvet.
I typed out a really good post that went to cyber never-never land. I wonder if I am being censored? Or, just paranoid?
I never denied that there were problems. My point is that when individuals commit a crime they are to be held accountable. My experience spans a couple of decades and I never observed a chain-of-command that ignored or disparaged a legitimate complaint.
I cannot speak for the other services. But, the Marines have made bold improvements and set in place mechanisms both in the chain of command and independent of it.
Considering that the US Military exists for the purpose of violently imposing our national will on others, I am proud of the advances made. That they have been made without compromising the ability to get the job done is nothing short of miraculous.
Simply put, I think the author is overstating the problem.
I better go now and see it this actually leaves the majik box and posts....
PhilPosted by Phillip on 2008-09-17 17:40:51

I got it wrong - the name was Mc Dowell. That does, however, not mean the study was wrong.
ArmyVet sounds as if she would also discard the Kanin Study of Purdue University and the police with its 41% admissions of false rape accusations.
FBI's study of over 4,600 cases also found 25% clear lies, and 25% doubtful - which means 50% cases should legally be discarded.
Mc Dowell only confirms this trend - disclaiming Susan Brownmiller's New York coffee-house gossip of "maximal 2% false rape accusations".
And in addition, where the accused is not a person previously known to the "victim", we have to accept 43% misidentifications.
That may explain the many innocent men who spent 25+ years in prison before released on proven innocence - without ever getting a cent from their accusers - and only 14 states have relevant compensation laws).
Why that? For the claim that "women never lie"? - We all know that there are many among us who do lie - not all in such a vicious way, but it's quite normal on a daily basis.
Let's be honest: those who make false accusations do not deserve our support - they are as bad as the rapists - and we should send them to prison!
Those who are innocent, should not be destroyed by someone's "girl power" game, or greed, or revenge, or need for attention.
Military forces are a hot kitchen - and if you don't like the heat - keep out of it. But if you go into it, be one of them - or you bring them all into danger: Solfiers only survive on intimate mutual support - and I mean intimate: the one next to you may be the one your life depends on.
The problem here is, as said before: The women in the forces are not working, living, risking the same. 12 to 15% only take 2% of the dangers and casualties.
But when it comes to sexual crimes, as in Bagran or Abu Ghraib, the "chain of command", you mention, ArmyVet, is almot entirely female: from Mary Walker (air force attorney who wrote the first approval note of torture), Gen. Barbara Fast (chief of US intelligence and interrogations in Iraq), Capt. Carolyn Woods (commanding officer of the unit that left death and torture trail in Bagran and Abu Ghraib), Brig. Janice Karpinsky (Mil.Police in AbuGhraib), not to mention Staff. Sarg. Jeanette Arojo-Burckardt of Guantanamo, who enjoyed menstruating onto the faces of naked chained prisoners. By the way: Barbara F. is now Commander of Fort Huachuca, the interrogation college of US forces.
So, what isall this nonsense about claiming that "women will civilize the military".
It works the other way: Opportunity makes sadists and rapists -opportunity, not sex or gender! We have to see and admit: Yes we are equal - and there are as many bad ones on our side as on the men's! But there should also be equality in good terms, such as in hardship and team cohesion, hanging together at all cost.
And that is where the rough reality is still alien to the young women of today - unless the are tough "dykes". If someone who is grappling you under shell-fire in a trench is committing a sexual crime by doing so - then you are in the wrong place : there is strength in such comfort and intimacy - as people in battles have known since Socrates' times.
As the old saying goes: as you make your bed, so you'll have to sleep. The point here is: keep out of that particular bedroom - it won't become a ladies' drawing room with cafPosted by joboost on 2008-09-16 21:46:54

joboost-
It is the Mcdowell study that purports to find 60% of rape accusations as false. If anyone with half a brain actually looks at the Checklist used to make these findings (which it seems you have not seen) one would find the list having the stated desire to create a condition where "lying" is the 3/4 of the possible outcome. Anyone who truley wants to consider rape in the military will not even consider this study unless they are trying to demonstrate sexism and horid treatment. The list accumulates points based on questions answered by the rape victim. More than 16 points and you are lying. Questions like "does she have any scratches" that are answered "no" get 3 points. Answer "No" to knowing the location? Three more points. Answer yes to fighting back? 3 more points. Were you drinking? 3 more points. Assaulted by more than one person? Half a point. 12.5 points in only 5 questions of a 57 question test.
(as a side note: We all know drinking is HEAVY in the military, if men can't handle thier drinks and not commit crimes while drunk, they shouldn't drink. Period. )
Ken-LGL's comments are from such a lack of knowledge and wealth of sexism it only serves to support the points Benedict makes.
Phillip: You seem to claim because you yourself gave and recieved training the problem doesn't really exists, only anomolies. Explain Maria Lauterbach.
I like how in your example a rapist was put in the brig for his own protection, not because he raped someone. So if he wasn't in danger, no brig? Sounds a lot like Lauterbach's case.
This the exact attitude that allows rape to continue. One man can say he never saw rape so it must not be a real problem. Never mind all the women AND men who being raped.
You say sexual harrassment training goes on in Boot camp? I agree, when ever a man is called a derogatory name for a female it is instilling the ideology that women are less and the worst thing that man can do is be a woman.
Not only that but you agree that sexual harrassment occurs and go on to say because you have a hard time substantiating it, it is a non-issue. (maybe you have a hard time substantiating it because of your opinion about it?). That is a poor attitude to making sure people are treated with respect. Here is a whopper: harresment is when someone makes unwelcome comments/actions. The harraser knows its unwelcome when the other person says stop. When it doesn't stop it becomes a chain of command issue. When chain of command continues to do nothing it gives power to the harrasser to continue and normalizes the behaviour, allowing the harraser to believe, in your own words, that there is only "harmless joking". That cycle leads to people like yourself who may be generally good and with good intentions to partake in or allow the continuation of actions/comments and military culture that breeds disdain for women, for men that do not fit gender sterotypes, harrasment, rape and sexual assault.
You say they are trained to do right, and when they do wrong its on them. I am saying they are trained wrong too, but if you don't view it as wrong, you will only think they are doing right. Your viewpoint as demonstrated by your comments is that there are certain things that are not wrong (things that those who have to live with them belive are wrong), so its no wonder that in 22 years active duty you hardly saw anything wrong. (Like when sexual harrasment training is going on people treat it like a non-issue or joke. Is that wrong? Or ok?)
From your comments, it seems as though that is why we can't seem to agree.
Hopefully there are two things we can agree on:
People need to take responsibility for thier own actions.
Chain of Command needs to take responsibility and punish those that are wrong.Posted by ArmyVet on 2008-09-16 13:03:37

The woman who wrote that article is wildly out of touch with realityl; like most leftist I encounter.
Women are small, weak and vulnerable to young aggressive men.
In past societies, women were war booty. But MEN (not women) decided to make the world a better place (at least in the WESTERN culture) and tried to create protections for women.
Among those protections were things like Chivalry, institutionalized respect and protections for women built into western laws. These laws included, among other things, the death penalty for rape.
The we started going backwards. Women decided that any difference in treatment under the law was SEXIST! Those laws weren't really meant to protect women, oh no, they were just another way keeping the Sisterhood down!
So, in an effort to placate their womenfolk, and win elections based on sentiment, men acceeded to laws that put women in combat and close proximity to men under the most savage conditions humans are capable of. As a result, women are back to being war booty.
You've come a long way, eh baby?
-Ken
http://www.LaserGuidedLoogie.comPosted by Ken-LGL on 2008-09-16 04:49:55

Why do soldiers rape?
It seems, there are, once again, too many direct political interests involved in this view of the military and violence, and sexual violence in particular. There has, indeed, been a long-known trend of Posted by joboost on 2008-09-14 21:40:58

"I think that is the problem: we read a press release and think things have changed. HOW do we KNOW they are recieving the training? "
I know it for a fact because I underwent it, I also conducted some of it. As a Company First Sergeant I dealt with the issue and ensured that it was handled within the regs. As an aside, one of the women in my company was raped. We placed the rapist in the brig for his own protection. The other Marines, mostly male, would have cheerfully torn him limb from limb long before the court martial took care of him.
"What I am saying is that they ARE not recieving the training or they recieve it in a manner that it is presented as a joke (in a society where we are SO uncomfortable about sex these classes are gone through very quickly or with uncomfortable laughs or outright sexual harrasment where rape is treated as a joke).
These things have not changed. I heard these things in 2000 at basic and through my time in the military."
As I previously said, I cannot speak for the other services. I am speaking from my experience of 22 years of Active Duty. At no time did we consider sexual assaults to be a joke.
Sexual Harassment is another matter. That is so highly subjective that we could spend years debating it and finally agree that it is a case-by-case matter. What is harassment to one is harmless joking to another.
"In basic, where one woman was assaulted by a fellow recruit and a anotehr was later raped by a Drill SGT, we were never given propper information on where to go with complaints let alone decisely told these thinsg are wrong, should not be tolerated and are welcome to be reported. "
Marines do not integrate training until after the title of Marine has been earned by completion of boot camp. And, our Drill Instructors are extremely well screened and supervised far more closely than most people realize. I am not saying it cannot happen because it did, in 1986 involving a female recruit and two female drill instructors. But that is the exception that demonstrates the policy of same sex drill instructors and non-integrated recruit training platoons work.
And, I guarantee that sexual harassment training takes place in boot camp.
Meaning no disrespect, but it appears from your comments that there are more differences between the Army and Marine Corps than I realized.
" I ask this: If you think official training classes on why sexual assault is wrong works, then why donPosted by Phillip on 2008-09-10 21:00:34

Thanks Phil for your comments. They are insightful for me.
I think that is the problem: we read a press release and think things have changed. HOW do we KNOW they are recieving the training?
What I am saying is that they ARE not recieving the training or they recieve it in a manner that it is presented as a joke (in a society where we are SO uncomfortable about sex these classes are gone through very quickly or with uncomfortable laughs or outright sexual harrasment where rape is treated as a joke).
These things have not changed. I heard these things in 2000 at basic and through my time in the military.
In basic, where one woman was assaulted by a fellow recruit and a anotehr was later raped by a Drill SGT, we were never given propper information on where to go with complaints let alone decisely told these thinsg are wrong, should not be tolerated and are welcome to be reported.
I ask this: If you think official training classes on why sexual assault is wrong works, then why don't you think unoficial training that women are less, weak and sexual targets does not also work?Posted by ArmyVet on 2008-09-10 09:44:53

Hi there ArmyVet, Believe it or not I get what you are saying. The example was from my own days as a recruit (1982 Parris Island).
I simply do not buy into that as a deep influence on a normal persons outlook. People are either worthy or not worthy based on their own actions. FWIIW, the Marine Corps banned that form of "verbal abuse" in 1986 if memory serves. And, following the tailhook scandal, HQ USMC initiated gender specific team based training that is required at both the individual and unit level on an annual basis. Please note that I cannot speak for the Army or the other services, but I am going on a limb and assume they enacted similar policy. And, I am not naive enough to believe that some of it still doesn't take place. It is a combination of the ten percent and a culture where your mission is to break things and kill people.
So, I refuse to tar and feather the entire service for the disgraceful actions of a few. Since I know they have received the needed training, any actions are on them alone. Not sure what the Army term is but as a Marine I want them in the Brig for life, or better yet placed before a firing squad.
I would be happy to continue the discussion, or; in order to remain gentlemanly about it, we can end up agreeing to simply disagree.
Take Care
PhilPosted by Phillip on 2008-09-08 15:08:40

Phillip, you say:
"When a drill instructor screams at a recruit that he is a Posted by ArmyVet on 2008-09-08 07:47:32

I'm sorry I overlooked this.

Wow, Phillip, I guess we just went overboard using strange words like “misogyny” and getting all hysterical about women’s problems. Let me apologize for all the veterans here who have been so mistaken. (I think you’ll find that’s most of the commenters here.)

Apology accepted. I'm glad that you recognize how large an obstacle to communication and problem resolution is when excessive hyperbole is used.

How dare you brush this away as baseless fear when you aren’t the one with a very real prospect of being raped by your comrades or superior officers.

Interesting you feel that way. A question if you don't mind. Where did I brush anything away as baseless?

Thirty to seventy per cent abuse and rape is not a problem that’s being handled. It’s a standard condition that not just tolerated, but encouraged. If you don’t see it you must have missed boot camp, or you’re in somebody else’s military.

Encouraged? Please. You will have to substantiate that.

Great strides? You mean it used to be worse?

Oh yes. The US Military used to be just a class divided as society is. Now, women and minorities have far more opportunities than in the civilian world. This happened as a direct consequence of the reforms initiated during the 1970's and carried thru the 80's and 90's. Also, there are mechanisms in place to address infractions that may not be violations of law, but are socially unacceptable. There are very few comparable civilian processes.

Your statistical superiority to civilians depends on a very skewed sample: until relatively recently, convicted felons and the mildly mentally retarded were not allowed to join up. Now that they are, do you think it’s likely that this problem will get better?

I retired in 2003 after my unit returned from Iraq. These changes you speak of need to be sourced. In any event, even if what you say is true there will not have been enough accessions to skew the results unless every newly recruited service member falls into those groups. The fact is that the US Military is held to a higher standard than the civil population it serves.
As I alluded to in the original post, rape is a horrible crime. And, nowhere in my original post did I condone it. But, to assert that the entire US Military is /are women haters is ridiculous. For starters, you've ignored the ten percent rule. You've also worried excessively about verbal abuse. When a drill instructor screams at a recruit that he is a "pussy" or "hits like a girl" he isn't being a woman hater. He is, in fact, denigrating the recruits manhood. It is possible to do either without doing both.
Have a good weekend.Posted by Phillip on 2008-09-06 15:14:49

If you want to play with the big boys, you are going to get dirty.
And next time, leave the seat up when you're finished.Posted by kwazykwanzaa on 2008-09-06 12:13:34

Very astute tinakins.
In general, all kinds of predators choose their victims based on vulnerability and then availability.
The specifically mysogynistic element serves to portray women not only as weaker, but as deserving targets. Men who are victimized have been "feminized" and moved over into the deserving victim column.
This can only be because, a priori, the assailants believe that sex is bad and therefore is the worst thing you can do "to" someone.
But it definitely is about power, not about sex.
A rapist doesn't rape for sex any more than an alcoholic drinks because he's thirsty.
Liberty & Justice,
sj
www.spartacusjones.comPosted by spartacustjones on 2008-08-29 05:36:59

A few years ago, when researching medical journals on incidents of rape in the military, I was surprised to learn that rape claims a significant number of male victims as well, re: men raping other men. However, statistics are difficult to collect as men notoriously underreport sexual assaults perpetrated against them.
As Army/Vet already said, the premier reason for rape as cited by perpetrators (including those in the military) is to humiliate the "weaker" individual. Rape is unrelated to the sexual content and exciting influences of pornography.
Similar to their female counterparts, military men are likewise vulnerable to verbal degradation as "pussies" and "faggots," and men charged with the rape of other men self-identify as straight rather than homosexual.
It appears that one's sex has less to do with victimization in the military than one's vulnerability within the pack, whether physical or emotional.Posted by tinakins on 2008-08-28 22:03:35

Wow, Phillip, I guess we just went overboard using strange words like "misogyny" and getting all hysterical about women's problems. Let me apologize for all the veterans here who have been so mistaken. (I think you'll find that's most of the commenters here.)
How dare you brush this away as baseless fear when you aren't the one with a very real prospect of being raped by your comrades or superior officers.
Thirty to seventy per cent abuse and rape is not a problem that's being handled. It's a standard condition that not just tolerated, but encouraged. If you don't see it you must have missed boot camp, or you're in somebody else's military.
Great strides? You mean it used to be worse?
Your statistical superiority to civilians depends on a very skewed sample: until relatively recently, convicted felons and the mildly mentally retarded were not allowed to join up. Now that they are, do you think it's likely that this problem will get better?Posted by =Eric on 2008-08-23 23:09:41

Wow. Misogyny seems to be the word of the day both in the article and in the comments.
I would like to try and allay some of the obvious fear being shown here. First, we don't hate women. Second, ten percent of any group doesn't deserve to be in the group.
Actually, todays military tends to be superior to the civilians they serve in several measurable ways. They are better educated, have less of a criminal history, and are far more steeped in honor, courage, commitment and tradition than your average civilian. Additionally they cope better under stress and are more physically fit.
None of that excuses rape. None of that changes a need to punish the rapist so completely that deterrence is really a viable approach.
And, while the US Military made great strides in quality during the 80's and 90's nothing is perfect. As I noted, at least ten percent will slip thru the cracks and various screening mechanisms.
There is still a ways to go. But, I have more faith in the DOD than in the civilian world.Posted by Phillip on 2008-08-23 21:54:30

Someone a lot smarter than me once noted, "Circumstances don't make you what you are. They just REVEAL what you are."
What do you suppose the prevalence of rape, in and out of the military, reveals about us?
When I was in the service -- and I was in the least "hardcore" branch -- the misogyny was enough to turn my stomach. But, hey, maybe that's just me...
But consider: we call people "heroes" and give them promotions and medals for doing things they'd go to prison for back home -- and most especially while "voluntarily" participating in a war that's patently an unjustifiable exercise in mass murder. ordered by a sociopath reknown for his own misogyny --- and we're surprised and outraged when they figure out that the only rule is "What's right is whatever you can get away with."
A bit disingenuous of us, don't you think?
Liberty & Justice,
sj
www.spartacusjones.comPosted by spartacustjones on 2008-08-21 06:43:19

Yup, our rights and freedoms are fine until they make somebody really, really nervous.
Connection, yes. Similarly, a glass of water is _connected_ to waterboarding. So what?
Positive correlation, no. (I've covered this earlier.)
Yes, it's exactly like Abu Grahib in that people can be brainwashed into doing things they know they shouldn't do. It's exactly like Abu Grahib in that those brainwashed people will re-invent techniques out of their own imagination they've never before been exposed to, and give in to group pressure to conform even though they would never otherwise do so. All this was demonstrated in Milgrim's research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) on college students.
Laugh all you want, but your certainty doesn't make something true that isn't.
And it's not pseudo anything. You've got your certainty. Enjoy it.Posted by =Eric on 2008-08-18 13:52:37

You know I've got to laugh ar these pseudo-intellectual defenses of violent pornography.
Of course there's a connection and correlation between what rapists read and watch and the uses of these same tactics in rape. Otherwise we'd have to believe that these men come up with the same things over and over again independently of each other and all on their own.
It's exactly like Abu Grahib. There's no way that those soldiers incidentially came up with specific abuses that mirror practices detailed in pornography. Otherwise we'd have to believe that pornography is just a reflection of the inner workings of the minds of men in general and we know that isn't true.
The military won't be quick to discharge soldiers because of rape charges because they know that there's some who'd rather take a couple of years in prison in order to escape the dangers of combat.Posted by glmo on 2008-08-18 11:55:44

> Pornography often equates sexual release with rape and torture. There is your connection. <
But there is still no statistically positive correlation between being exposed to pornography and then committing rape or abuse that has ever been demonstrated. The only correlation is mildly negative: people exposed to such images are slightly less likely to commit those acts.
And yes, of course the people in those pictures and videos are indeed being criminally harmed if they have not given informed consent (which is why child porn _is_ illegal, because a child is by definition not of legal age to consent.) But there is still no evidence that people who view this stuff are harmed by it or are thereby led to commit it.
You also assume that people act out what they read or see. Children do, which is why porn (and guns, and heavy machinery) are kept out of their hands, by law or by common sense. Adults are assumed to not be so easily moved. Adults who commit crimes are punished according to law. If they cannot control their behavior a judge may determine that they are incompetent lock them away until deemed competent.
Military training, especially boot camp, is a very deliberate form of brainwashing to remove moral and civil constraints from people who have newly acquired them. It uses the sexual anxieties of youth to overcome inhibitions about killing others. Is it surprising that, after having been conditioned to abuse and take the lives of others on command, that they then turn against each other, their spouses, or other citizens of their own country as well? We justify this institutional abuse of our youngest adults by claiming that it's necessary in order to defend our country. (I believe that this is a very great crime, but I'm largely alone in that belief.)
You are welcome to think me a bad person for "defending" pornography. I don't defend it, I defend freedom of thought and expression.
And please don't assume that I (or that people who agree with me) do nothing about the problem of rape just because I/we don't agree with you.Posted by =Eric on 2008-08-15 17:50:13

Pornography often equates sexual release with rape and torture. There is your connection.
If language can motivate how one thinks and acts than how can images not also have the same possibility?
If you are interested or excited by it chances are you either will try to get someone to do it or you are so ashmed of it you will find unhealthy ways to enact it. Porn sets up POWER dynamics, teaches men they should get sex when, how and from whom they want, it makes women on demand.
I believe some of the porn supporters are not very familiar with the porn industry as they seem to think most porn is pretty vanilla. Just google rape porn and find out. Most "vanilla" porn even is based on the degradation of the woman involved, showing her in positions of submission. At the very least porn teaches military men faulty lessons about sex and lessen's thier chances of healthy relationships.
We have a very skewed vision of sex and sexuality in this country. We are so uncomfortable with real sex that there is billion dollar porn industry.
It seems we think it is more important to make money from video taped or photgraphed prostitution or rape than to stop rape.
Some researchers find that porn harms women because tehre ARE women who have been harmed by porn. What we need to study as well is how porn harms men.
I would feel less negatively about porn if those who support it also tried to stop rape just as vigorously. Is getting off is more important than stopping the violation of peoples bodies?Posted by ArmyVet on 2008-08-15 08:03:18

Research exploring the relationship of pornography to rape is inconclusive in that those with a stake in the outcome invariably find what they're looking for. Hard core feminists find that porn harms women. Other researchers find that if anything, access to porn is at least a partial substitution for other forms of sexual release. Rape is _not_ a form of sexual release, it's a form of torture which includes physical and psychological debasement and humiliation. That is, or should be the point of this article, and the author only confuses the issue by bringing in old feminist political points.
Language is a trickier issue. I believe that language is powerful -- as a graduate of the Free Speech Movement and a once-thoroughly-indoctrinated-Marine, how could I not? The use of feminine terms in the military to designate weakness and incompetence is quite deliberate. The object is to shame recruits into behavior they would otherwise refuse to do.
If we forbade sexist terms I'm sure that drill instructors would instantly switch to other denigrating terms. "Weak, child, baby, etc., would work too, but sexualized terms work better because American culture makes sex, and particularly feminine sex, shameful.
The essential problem is not the language or the sexism, but that war is inhumane, undemocratic, inegalitarian, and a very nasty means of dealing with those our leaders choose to disagree with. It's also stupid.
There is a reason why world organizations outlaw pre-emptive war.Posted by =Eric on 2008-08-14 19:10:32

That, I agree with. I do not believe there is a correlation. I know several individuals who watch pornography, I've seen some myself, and just because you are interested or excited by it means that you will enact it on another human being against his/her will.Posted by arttandsoul on 2008-08-14 16:59:23

I just don't agree that there is any correlation between porno and rape. I "consume" porno all the time. I'm sure there exists the violent variety, but most is just normal non-violent sexual contact, which I don't think demeans women or men. And last time I checked it is still legal. I promise you stopping porno will not stop rape.
Porno has become extremely widespread since the advent of the internet. Some estimate 50% of internet consumption is porn-related. Rape has been around long before porno came along. This idea is rather new to me. What exactly is the logic that links porno and rape? Is there any serious scientific study that draws that conclusion?Posted by wspettus on 2008-08-14 15:07:29

As pornography becomes more and more violent (Gonzo) it is hard to believe that there is NOT a connection. I know that there is pornography being consumed in Iraq that is beyond "hypersexulized" images and into violent rape, incest and extrmeme domination.
This pornography associates sexual release with violence and domination and we have a problem in our military with violence and domination.
The military is NOT general society, if someone wants to consume whatever porn they want to they should not join the military. The military is an employer and has a responsability to maintain a work and living environment that does not put its memebers is unnessesary danger. Pornography cannot be proven to have no effect on male/female relations. Until it can be it should be seen and treated as a motivating factor to the devaluing of female soldiers that allows male soldiers to rape someone they are supposed to view as family. Also in male on male rape very often that action is a display of power and agression towards a man who is viewed as less than male, or "woman-like".
The problem extends way beyond pornography, something that is very shown very well by wspettus comments. As long as people say "Encourage females to report these crimes, pursue assailants viigoriously, and protect them after the fact" we will have the problem of rape. This comments bears the blame and burden on the person who was raped, not on telling rapists not to rape. Women are doing these do these exact things (and some men) but no justice is delivered. Work on stopping rape, not blaming the person who is raped.Posted by ArmyVet on 2008-08-14 08:43:20

As the author said and as it has been seen in many statistics, wspettus, rape victims very rarely come forward and report their rapes for fear of having to face their rapist and also for the effects that will be caused from speaking up (embarrassment, guilt/self-blame, etc.). Yes, all rape victims, both within the military and civilian life, should be encouraged to "report the crimes, pursue assailants vigoriously and protect them after the fact," but that is far from enough. Because these women are forced to endure such sexual harassment from their co-workers, since it is obviously documented and researched, the military should be cracking down on fair and equal treatment of women. Sure, its been going on like this for years..... but it has to stop sometime.Posted by arttandsoul on 2008-08-14 07:05:21

The endemic misogyny in the military service is not the same as one finds in civilian life. No one uses misogyny to make more efficient construction workers. The US military uses it to make more efficient killers, free of conscience and without hesitation or compunction.
It was no different in 1958, when I was a Marine. It served its purpose quite well then. It took me many years to understand, forgive, recover, and begin to make reparations. I will continue making reparations for the rest of my life.
But until we publicly recognize it, we cannot stop it.
At the same time, I agree with wspettus that the relationship between pornography and misogyny has not been demonstrated, and if anything, shows a mild negative correlation.
Do not confuse the two issues. No one who has been raped has ever confused it with pornography, no matter how much they may disapprove of pornography. You lessen the seriousness of rape by conflating it with the triviality of looking at hypersexualised images.
Are we harmed by being bombarded by exaggerated sexuality in every medium of expression? Probably. But again, it is not rape.Posted by =Eric on 2008-08-13 19:57:32

It is stunning that you miss the most obvious factors. How do you expect men to maintain any kind of moral compass when they are trained to kill on a massive scale. Together with the fact that these young men are far away from family influences, and the opportunity to meet girls in normal social settings.
Your charge of "misogyny" and accessibility to pornography in the military are really off-base. Pornography is even more accessible in normal civilian life and as you have noted the rates of sexual assault are fewer. What evidence do you have that "there is a significant correlation between pornography circulation and rape rates".
Misogyny means hatred of women, not "I find women to be primarily objects of my sexual desire". It's a distinction that you do not seem to grasp. I've been in the military and I know what you mean with the language that demeans women, but it is no greater or less than a construction site or anywhere where it is mostly young men and everybody wants to demonstrate their maleness with such language.
In short, you are over politicizing the crime of rape in the military. It's against the law, it violates military code. Encourage females to report these crimes, pursue assailants viigoriously, and protect them after the fact.Posted by wspettus on 2008-08-13 15:08:30

Thank you Helen for documenting the crisis proportions of sexual harrassment and assault for women in the military. From this information it is VERY CLEAR that the Pentagon, the US Dept of Defense and each separate military tribunal or commission must include strict and detailed protections for its women soldiers. The conduct of military men must be held accountable on all levels.
- Lys Anzia - Women News Network - WNNPosted by lysanzia on 2008-08-13 08:18:44